Competitive PUBG: RIDPE
Today, we’ll be discussing what I consider to be the main thing I’d talk about if I had to pick one.
After the first two articles, you’ve certainly understood I believe in a very proactive approach. An approach where you try to stay in charge of what is going on, have information to make the best choice most of the time and have the ability to pick favorable spots.
We’ve extensively discussed how to gather information easily through lines and proactivity, and that’s what I stand for.
Today, we’ll discuss how to bring structure in your games, and exploit I properly.
IDPE: Information, Decision, Planning, Execution
IDPE is a very natural structure I use to explain to players how to organize their games. It’s both very intuitive (as it makes a lot of sense), and also destabilizing at first. As a matter of fact, during the first few weeks, players tend to be stuck at the “information” phase and usually die being too inactive.
Once they understand how to properly balance every phase, they gain a lot of consistency.
I’d sort the decision phase into 3 main categories:
Defensive spot: you’re in the circle, there are teams around you who need to find a way in,
Tasks: identify threats, determine the space you’re willing to control,
Tools: tasks assignment, visual tracking, if…then…/pre-planning,
Lurking spot: you’ve sorted out your threats and have forced people to bounce to another line, you can now start working toward your next step,
Tasks: push your control/expand your territory to establish contact with teams around you,
Tools: pairing/name + action,
Chasing spot: you’re outside the circle, you need to get into the next circle,
Tasks: define your line (again) based on the new circle, sort threats (make sure you’re the last team on your line), start working on your next position,
Tools: cf. above.
As a side-note, I’d like to mention this is only a baseline. I usually adjust this structure according to the team and their existing codes.
The planning phase, is, in my opinion, one of the most important parts, and what is usually missing for a lot of teams.
This phase is there to establish an ideal and detailed scenario of HOW you’re going to realize your decision.
Of course, you’ll sometimes need to shorten this phase (3p opportunity, taking prio on a hard shift, death ball fights, etc…). However, there are a lot of situations where you’re in full control and have 3 minutes or so to plan your next step.
Since there are not really “rules” since it’s really spot dependent, I’ll provide a few examples:
- If you’re crashing a compound: determine who is crashing which building. Once you’ve landed, which LOS do you need to be aware of? Are you using the stuff? If so, what kind of stuff and where? Do you try to take control of the first building or, would you rather stay outside? Do you plan to wrap? East or West? How many are doing it? Who is anchoring? Which angle?
- If you’re sending it to a bowl: what is the exact pathing? Do you need to convoy? Once you’ve landed, which LOS do you need to be aware of? Which position is likely to pressure you? Do you need to use smoke? How are you going to park your vehicles?
- If you’re taking the fight in front of you: who is anchoring, who is getting close? Do you need to use any stuff? If so, who is doing it? Is there a terrain feature you need to consider: a position you need to clear, or where you can stall for a while?
Each spot is unique, and it’s up to you to build up your ideal plan and get most steps sorted before you consider pulling the trigger.
The main idea behind it is to make sure you remain proactive for as long as possible, even in a difficult spot, which makes it easier to catch a team off-guard. It also creates comfort and avoids the status quo in case you start getting pressured without getting an entry knock, for example.
A good alternative to a “full-plan” can be shorter plans within the call and using name + action as your main tool: “X, I’ll flash above the ridge then we pick”, “X, pick that LOS, I’ll get close”.
Finally, another important thing when it comes to plans is names. Any kind of “we” is fine for the decision phase, but whenever you’re getting down to planning, then execution, it’s mandatory to use names, and actually talk directly to each other.
Finally, execution! It’s the most straightforward phase, as you “simply” realize your plan. Of course, according to what’s going on, there might be a need for adjustments midway through.
I’ll only mention tools you might use to be efficient and operate together. Forcing favorable trades and avoiding knocks is often enough to win a fight.
Name + Action: Once again, the most critical tool in my opinion. Use names, pair with someone.
Be vocal: Tell what you do (picking, healing, nading, holding, etc…). Your mates require information to make the right decision. Give precise info.
Timers: Time your picks, force X v 1s. It works for nades as well.
Pacing: As long as you’re on the proactive team, you can decide the pacing of a fight. It doesn’t have to be binary. You can slowly secure your knocks, take time to heal, reset during a fight. The main keys to pacing are to refine your information over time, pinch people when possible, and be deadly with your nades.
If you use the first 3 items, you’ll have way easier fights. The 4th one is mostly to maintain resources, and avoid trades.
IDPE is, in my opinion, the ideal structure you should be looking for in any team that embraces a proactive approach. And that’s what you can find when you look at teams such as STK, GAS, and SQ to some extent in NA, VP, TL, and HERO in EU. There are certainly other teams that could be mentioned, but that’s the main team you can be looking at if you’re looking for resources (lines, play style, their ability to control space and create CQC, how they interact in CQC, and so on…).
eU, BBB, Mercurial, Navi, and many more have too many sends in their defaults to be considered such teams in my opinion.
I do agree that sends are sometimes necessary to answer some specific circle/shifts. To be more general, I think all teams should have 5% of “anarchic” and unpredictable choices (traps, sends, baits), which are, in fact, heavily prepared and answer some needs.
Finally, R for Reactive spots. Since it’s a 16 teams/64 players game, there will be situations you can’t plan around, just because of the number of parameters out of your control.
There are so many things you can consider to be “absurd”, and yet, it’ll happen. You can always complain about how dumb you think it’s, and yet, it’ll still happen because another team believes they’re doing something they should be doing, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to prevent it.
Instead of complaining while you’re waiting for the next game in the lobby, there are behaviors that should be adopted in such situations to improve your average outcome, and that’s what this part is here for.
I can’t cover every spot, but I’ll rather go over the main tools:
- Break aggression: whenever you’re dealing with such a reactive spot, think that the aggressor is already at the E phase of his decision-making process, while you didn’t even start the I phase. What you should be trying to do is to save time.
Let’s take a crash as an example. You’re in a 2/2 split, and a part of it is getting crashed. Way too many times, I see the defending duo trying to get knocks, and win a 2v4. Does that sound realistic to you? It doesn’t to me. If they have an anchor, they’ll get an entry knock, and even if you trade you’ll just get flushed, and they’ll get their res, not to mention the compound, your loot, and your cars.
What should you be doing instead? Step back and stay alive. Use your stuff to save time, pick tight LOS to get entry knocks (but don’t double down), and the most important thing, start gathering I.
How many have crashed? Do they have an anchor? Several? Are you getting pinched, or do you still have time? The other 2 need accurate info to provide the support you are expecting from them.
- Create chaos: following the same reasoning, a team pushing you and getting an entry knock is already far in their process and will “always” win the fight if you try to fight back.
You’re holding your ground, and suddenly, someone gets knocked. You don’t have any information, you didn’t know that team existed, and yet, you’re suddenly into a fight.
The same reasoning as crashes applies, don’t give the aggressor what he’s looking for. Instead, use your defensive stuff (smokes, flashes) to slow down the pacing and reduce the pressure. By doing so, you’ll break their plan (isolate a part of their team, break LOS, force them to step back), and from there, you can start working toward I again, you might also be able to recover your knocks and go from what was a lost fight (10/90 or 20/80) to a fair fight (50/50).
Following these two examples, and if you’ve understood the reasoning, you’ll make the right decision more often, and by doing so, will necessarily improve your odds to get out of tricky spots.
Google sheet’s link: here. Feel free to do a copy, and use it according to your needs.
That’s already a too-long article, and it’s more than time to wrap it up.
I said it in the intro, but explaining this structure is often overwhelming in the first place, as most players I’ve coached try to do “too well” while all I’m looking for is bringing up awareness such as they have a more complete approach of their spots and not only have the ability to do what they used to do, but they also have more tools to improve their average outcome in all situations. PUBG is a complex game where it’s almost impossible to make the right decision 100% of the time. There are harder games where having a more than average understanding of the game will make the difference in the long run.
I always stay available for any question you may have about competitive PUBG (https://twitter.com/Znooper_PUBG / Znooper#8033).